Well, I did my best to navigate both threads, and while they were helpful, I'm still a little bit confused about Curriculum B. In theory, it sounds excellent, but the radical leftism has me a little worried. I mean, I like the idea that it seems like a really closeknit group, but the fact is I'm hardly a liberal. I'd sort of like to get in touch with someone who's a bit more moderate politically in Curriculum B. Having read those threads and navigated those sites, is anybody in my boat? Also, I'd be interested to know how much harder Curriculum B is/whether it does in fact end up affecting hiring practices/the way prospective employers will look at you....

As I posted above, I just signed up for Curriculum B, and I am no liberal. I'm a moderate libertarian of the "work for change from within the Republican party" variety. So, RobinHood, I definitely think you should choose B too! I've got to lobby for the diverse voices now.

Scott Scheule is a GULC blogger and extreme libertarian who is just finishing up Curriculum B now: http://phernhill.blogspot.com/ He doesn't write very much about it; his blog is more personal. But if you e-mail him, he'd probably be willing to talk to you about it. I've been talking with him a lot in the past month or so.

I can't really answer what you're asking because I haven't even started law school yet, but I'm not a liberal and I'm most likely going to be taking Curriculum B. The draw for me is context. I don't just what to learn what; I want to learn why. Curriculum B is supposed to teach that.

I've been corresponding with a 1L who's in "B" right now. He said that reading used to be burdensome but has since been revamped and is now better though still probably a bit more than "A". Reading load according to two students is about 4 hrs a day, mon-thurs with a full day reading/outlining on the weekend. Another student (fast reader) reads 1-2 hours/day every day.

Also, grades are on a curve based on one's section so you will only be competing for grades with other "B" students who have the same workload as you do.

I read that studies have been done and "B" people are not at a disadvantage with regards to employment.

I can't really answer what you're asking because I haven't even started law school yet, but I'm not a liberal and I'm most likely going to be taking Curriculum B. The draw for me is context. I don't just what to learn what; I want to learn why. Curriculum B is supposed to teach that.

I've been corresponding with a 1L who's in "B" right now. He said that reading used to be burdensome but has since been revamped and is now better though still probably a bit more than "A". Reading load according to two students is about 4 hrs a day, mon-thurs with a full day reading/outlining on the weekend. Another student (fast reader) reads 1-2 hours/day every day.

Also, grades are on a curve based on one's section so you will only be competing for grades with other "B" students who have the same workload as you do.

I read that studies have been done and "B" people are not at a disadvantage with regards to employment.

if B teaches "why" better than A, then B is much better for me. Isnt everyone just interested in why more than what, at least in the begining of their legal careers?

From the Curriculum B description on GULC's admitted student's website:

...Exposure to the important common-law principles comes in a context that emphasizes the connection between different areas of law and other disciplines. More emphasis is placed on the emergence of the regulatory state and on the impact government regulation has on legal theory and practice. Most significantly, the faculty make a concerted effort to integrate their various offerings and to teach students the ways in which seemingly unconnected legal problems pose common, recurring issues. In short, the curriculum focuses on the "big picture" -- not just the "what" of law, but also on the "why."

Thanks y'all. I appreciate those very thoughtful comments.What I find interesting is, as the thread I've quoted from demonstrates, Curriculum B sounds like a no-brainer--in theory at least. I mean, isn't this why any intellectually curious (and not simply greed-mongering Hun) individual goes to law school? I guess I've just been raised (and here, perhaps my conservatism, albeit moderate conservatism emerges) to expect catches. In other words, there must be drawbacks, right? I guess I'm just on the qui vive for those drawbacks...A little more reading isn't discouragement enough, but, as Penn Warren writes, although I may butcher it, man is conceived in sin and born in corruption, from the stench of the diddie to the stink of the shroud, there is always something....Now, what is that something?

I can't really answer what you're asking because I haven't even started law school yet, but I'm not a liberal and I'm most likely going to be taking Curriculum B. The draw for me is context. I don't just what to learn what; I want to learn why. Curriculum B is supposed to teach that.

I've been corresponding with a 1L who's in "B" right now. He said that reading used to be burdensome but has since been revamped and is now better though still probably a bit more than "A". Reading load according to two students is about 4 hrs a day, mon-thurs with a full day reading/outlining on the weekend. Another student (fast reader) reads 1-2 hours/day every day.

Also, grades are on a curve based on one's section so you will only be competing for grades with other "B" students who have the same workload as you do.

I read that studies have been done and "B" people are not at a disadvantage with regards to employment.

if B teaches "why" better than A, then B is much better for me. Isnt everyone just interested in why more than what, at least in the begining of their legal careers?

Thanks y'all. I appreciate those very thoughtful comments.What I find interesting is, as the thread I've quoted from demonstrates, Curriculum B sounds like a no-brainer--in theory at least. I mean, isn't this why any intellectually curious (and not simply greed-mongering Hun) individual goes to law school? ...

I hope so.

Okay, let me elaborate.

One of the main points of support the "don't ever go to law school" crowd has for their belief is this: Lots of people go to law school hoping for an intellectual experience, a continuation of undergrad. But law school isn't like that. It's a professional school, and the attitudes and expectations there are exactly what those people are not looking for. I'm hoping that curriculum B will be an oasis of intellectual experience in an otherwise professional-school setting. I'm hoping that the people who are looking for that type of experience will gravitate toward curriculum B, and even gravitate toward Georgetown because of the alternative curriculum option.

On the other hand, I do think that there are good reasons for a lot of people to choose curriculum A. Some of them like the "tried and true" method and don't want to place themselves in a curriculum that is still experimental and evolving. Some want to "share in the experience" that law students have all had, nationwide, for 100 years or more. In Georgetown's case in particular, some people might be attracted to being allowed to choose an elective in the spring semester of the 1L year and getting an early start on the area they really want to study. Some aren't interested in the interdisciplinary areas that can be easily related to law - for instance, if one has a science background and wants to practice patent law. Some might find out that libertarian superstar Randy Barnett is teaching one section of 1L Constitutional Law and really, really want to take his class.

So, there are any number of reasons Curriculum A could be a better choice than Curriculum B. It all depends on your interests and goals.

Thanks y'all. I appreciate those very thoughtful comments.What I find interesting is, as the thread I've quoted from demonstrates, Curriculum B sounds like a no-brainer--in theory at least. I mean, isn't this why any intellectually curious (and not simply greed-mongering Hun) individual goes to law school? I guess I've just been raised (and here, perhaps my conservatism, albeit moderate conservatism emerges) to expect catches. In other words, there must be drawbacks, right? I guess I'm just on the qui vive for those drawbacks...A little more reading isn't discouragement enough, but, as Penn Warren writes, although I may butcher it, man is conceived in sin and born in corruption, from the stench of the diddie to the stink of the shroud, there is always something....Now, what is that something?

Taken from a review of GULC on epinions.com:

"I was given the choice of taking the standard curriculum or an alternative curriculum, what they call Section 3. Basically you learn black letter law but also the history, political science, sociology, and other liberal arts type background to that law. I chose the curriculum because I thought it would be a great learning experience--and it was. The thing that I wasn't prepared for was that most of the students taking the curriculum already had so much knowledge and background in those subjects, and I felt myself at a disadvantage. Students would spend whole class periods philosophizing and debating back and forth between legal realism and the value of a hypothetical life and so on. I was more than a little intimidated and also frustrated because my brain does not function on that level. I learned that I wasn't really a good fit for the curriculum. This was a hard lesson to learn since first year grades basically determine whether you get a journal spot and interviews with top firms and judges. This is not just sour grapes talking, my first year grade average was horrible, but 2nd and 3rd year (when I took mostly straight black letter law classes) I made Dean's List. So if you are considering the alternative curriculum, make sure you know what kind of person you are and whether you enjoy philosophical debates on theory that has no place in real law. I learned a lot and I'm glad I learned it, but I wish someone would have warned me sufficiently before I made the choice."

Is this anecdote a reflection of the current situation? Is this a reflection of a larger opinion? I don't know. But there it is. One person's opinion on the "something."